Why do mac's have weak (256) shared graphics on most mac's

but apple forces you to have 256mb graphics is the difference

But what force is there here? You ultimately decide to buy or not buy. No force that I can see is being applied.

thats too much money just to get better graphics

What else can I say?

im talking about the fact that there is nothing higher then mb graphic cards with mac's. i see a lot of pc's with 1gb standard.

Mac Pros are capable of sporting high-end graphics cards of various flavors; see here. Two different NVIDIA cards, 1GB and 1.5GB respectfully. And I believe those are heavy duty units too, would work great if you were able to buy one. It seems that they have been relegate to after-market status on the Apple Store though, wasn't like that before.

A lot of inexpensive computers come with cards marked at 1GB and whatnot (like our VAIO FW's ATI 46xx), but the cards themselves aren't necessarily as powerful as a more expensive, faster performing card was less VRAM. Faster chips are important too. Several lower-end Macs ship with NVIDIA integrated graphics, while the others come with real cards. Is 512MB not plenty? My 2007 MacBook Pro rocks a 256MB 8600GT, and it works great. If you're concerned about value, I can assure you, Macs are capable of utilizing their GPU power. More memory is always welcome, but the current crop of Macs are good performers. You probably wouldn't be able to notice a significant difference if the new iMacs shipped with a 1GB card instead of a 512MB, unless you are working with intense video and editing projects. Games may run faster, but it all depends on a combination of hardware factors as well.

-BMF

there is nothing higher than mb graphics cards. for the same money i can get a pc with a lot more power.

Specs on paper don't always reflect real-world performance. If you're so concerned with Macs' video capabilities (which they have been lauded for countless times over the years), put your own card in or get a PC if it bothers you so much. Apple chooses not to offer more powerful cards on some of their products. Ok. At least with Snow Leopard, the system utilizes OpenCL capabilities to make better use of the available video horsepower even when the computer is handling regular processes. You get your money's worth with Apple's hardware, in my book.

-BMF

since you seem to know quite a bit i thought i would ask you this i was planning on buying a 27inch imac i5 for 1,999 i started looking around at dell's website and i was able to configure a Studio XPS 8000 for a much cheaper price($1,249)i know i might not need quadcore but i want to be futureproof and the lower end imacs just seem to be a rip off for the price compared to pc's. is the dell a better buy than the new imac? (i copied and pasted specs)it seems the imac uses the exact same processor. , Intel

is not configured in the same way as the iMac.

Just for starters, you have failed to mention that the monitor for your "much cheaper price" Dell is smaller and has a lower resolution than the iMac 27" LCD.
I also don't see anything about a built-in camera.
What? No Firewire?

The Hard drive on the Dell is half the size.

Although the processors are the same, it brings up that old adage, "it's not what you've got, it's the way that you use it"
OS X's use of the processor is much more efficient than Windows, plus, Apple designs the logic board and the OS which makes the whole thing a much better proposition than the Dell.
Bottom line, that machine is still running Windows and will still have all the Windows problems associated with it.

However, if the price is all you are concerned about, go with the Dell and "save" $650.

Seriously, and to answer your question. No, the Dell is not better than the new iMac.

P

Is that apple adds hardware that is not neccessary in order to sell for a higher price. And does not give a person much option but to take what they offer if a person likes their product. Which is stupid in my opinion because they have a smaller number of potential customers b/c they dont give the consumer much choice.

everyone has one.

Interesting that Apple are the only computer company that currently does not have declining sales figures.

P

And this could simply be because of its popularity based on its attention b/c of iphone's and ipod's. if i can recall apple currently does not offer anti glare screen imac's again proving the limited options with mac's. With mac's its either you want it or you dont simple as that.

i'll tell you what i do like about mac's: Build Quality, Simplicity, apperently Simple & more secure software compared to window's pc's. what i dont like about mac's is overpricing & lack of options on the few upgrades that are available. Also unecessary hardware (on new imac's 1,499 and up) like 1tb Hd's with no option to go lower and save some $$$ if you do not need a tb of storage, built in camera again no option to remove it to save $$$, your stuck with it, and monitor options , glossy screens on all mac's except on 15-17inch macbook pro's but to get antiglare screen you pay extra. Also with pc's catching on to apple's lead on energy efficency. It begs the question as to who's is an overall better value pc's or mac's.

the new series of iMac's, the ones with the 1TB drive and all the other "unnecessary" stuff.

It's cheaper, faster and larger than the series before it.

IMO, there is no question as to which machine offers the better value.

Never mind what you consider to be unnecessary, do a real price comparison and you will find that the Dell is not such a good deal after all.

As I said earlier, if you base your idea of value on price, go get yourself a Dell.

P

Ok, so it's been determined, apparently, that you think the Dell is a better value if it has some similar specs and is technically cheaper up front. The main difference between Macs and PCs is the operating system and its software. That's it. Apple uses almost the same lot of components that many other manufacturers purchase themselves. No doubt that there will be "conflicting" prices in the eyes of some people, such as yourself. That said, Apple has quite the ability and flair to design incredible machines such as the new iMacs or MacBooks. Other, high-end PCs might offer the same C2D or i5/i7 processors, but you have to take everything else into account as well.

Why would you want a smaller hard drive? The fact that the standard size is now 1TB on all of the models, save the lowest-tier iMac, is a great improvement when compared to its predecessors, as Peter says. And yet even that iMac has a 3.06Ghz C2D chip. That's quite impressive. 4GB RAM standard across the board... And technically, with a starting price of $1200, you're getting quite a lot, with plenty of room to upgrade memory and hard drive capacities if you choose to. There's plenty of bang for the buck, but you would rather them cut the price by a small margin just to save a few dollars? In the long run, I don't think it would matter so much. After all, having built-in iSight, FireWire, amongst other capabilities, is extremely convenient for most people. Easy chatting online, fast and reliable data transfers from cameras and hard drives... etc. Must I go on?

But wait a minute. Earlier you were complaining about the graphics on the lower-end Macs, right? Well, only the base 21.5-inch iMac lacks a dedicated graphics card. With 4GB of RAM (and a max of 8GB for that particular model), there's more than plenty enough memory available for the shared graphics. The others possess the same NVIDIA chipset with true cards. There is so much power for OS X to use with these new hardware arrangements, and I am sure that it does use it all. Can Windows dig into the hardware as far as Apple's system?

Those are but a few of the many benefits of a Mac. No, they're not perfect, but the whole package is simply a good deal. If many of these capabilities and options that you feel are unnecessary or pointless add too much to the cost, then don't get one. If you don't want it, don't buy it. You should understand that the fact that the items you mentioned are included with the Mac, and not added at the customer's expense. The value lies in the mind of the beholder, so to speak. I'm not going to tell you which is better for the money because it really just depends on what you want your computer to do. It's your call. Hope you make a decision that you're comfortable with.

-BMF

"but you have to take everything else into account as well"

I felt that had been sufficiently implied and stated to a certain extent. Forgive me if I did not make that clear enough.

You just have to look at the big picture to see what you're getting. Apple offers some well-rounded hardware configurations, and the performance and usability of their computers reflects that. Sure, some Windows PCs are going to have similar components, but they're also going to have different ones, different software, and some flavor of Windows that "could" be as fully-featured as OS X. Macs come with one system; Windows comes in many versions, each adding more and more features as you go up the ladder. You also have to shell out more for AV software and essential programs that aren't included with Windows PCs, whereas the only thing you would really need to install on a Mac (assuming you're new to Macs and are content with Apple's consumer programs) is a productivity program suite of some sort, be it Office, iWork, or one of the many free alternatives online. There are plenty of factors.

Visit an Apple Store and just play around with a new Mac. See what you do or don't like about the system, because that's really the key element here. OS X sets Apple apart. You have to understand and perhaps appreciate the ease of use and the flow of the Mac OS to truly enjoy using it. Windows runs well on a Mac, but running just Windows on one turns it into any other PC that can't fully utilize its operating system. Windows just isn't coded to take advantage of all the components out there. Again, that's a very distinct difference between the systems. You'll find a lower-end Mac can at times compare favorably with a theoretically more powerful PC because of this reason. Go try out OS X, see how fast it is, and whether you'd like it or not. That can help you better determine its value.

-BMF

websites with sensitive information like bank sites and you know financial sites in general.

"OS X's use of the processor is much more efficient than Windows, plus, Apple designs the logic board and the OS which makes the whole thing a much better proposition than the Dell.
Bottom line, that machine is still running Windows and will still have all the Windows problems associated with it."

Is price. Those who have money can afford the Macs. Those who don't have money, can't. The rich go on and on about oh it's YOUR money YOU decide how you spend it but they don't understand the value of the working man's dollar.

Another factor is that Apples don't last as long. My wife has an '04 Powerbook G4 laptop. $2400 in '04. I have an '04 Dell Inspiron 8600. $1400 in '04. I'm a computer person, including gaming. I do EVERYTHING on my computer. My wife might check her email every other day or whatever, and that's been the case for the past 6 years. Her powerbook's SECOND battery (the original crapped out YEARS ago) crapped out about 2 years ago. if you unplug the Mac, it shuts off instantly. Also, Mac does scheme-y things like drop support of certain services to get you to upgrade to the newer OS. Ever since Adobe Flash Player 9 the Mac doesn't support it anymore, you simply can't watch any newer flash videos, which for an "internet" computer user like my wife, means your computer is basically obselete.

How's my Inspiron, do you ask? Well, surprisingly, with the (literally) THOUSANDS more hours that I have on it compared to the Mac: the Battery still works for about an hour, Windows XP is still working beautifully, And we both use it on a daily basis. for gaming, burning movies, watching movies, listening to Cd's, burning CD's, editing videos, all the BS that Mac advertises it's better at.

Sorry, it's not. Sorry Mac users, but recognize the only reason you have Mac's is because you can afford to put up with the BS.